I think that you are right, if I’m understanding you correctly, but this statement is not really in disagrement with the doctrine of sola scriptura (properly understod). Sola scriptura means that the Bible is our primary (not only) authority for matters of faith and practice–it is the norma normans, the sole “norming norm” for other authorities. Actually the Bible itself affirms that nature is enough to tell us something of the doctrine of God, namely that he exists and is eternally powerful (Rom. 1).

See my thoughts on Westminster critiques of Enns here http://tabrookins.blogspot.com/2008/06/frame-right-and-enns-wrong.html.

See also my post on the use of the word inerrancy here. http://tabrookins.blogspot.com/2008/06/infallible-or-inerrant.html

I confess that my field of specialization is Old Testament interpretation and theology, not philosophy. But if you’ll promise to deal gently with me, I’ll try to wade into the deep waters of your area of specialty, hoping not to get in over my head.

Your ‘ultimate criterion for assessing the validity of any truth claim’ is whether or not that truth claim matches reality. That sounds like a simple, self-evident, and safe epistemological methodology. In a certain sense, it resembles my approach to knowledge. Yet, as I’m sure you’re aware, it raises some questions, like, what is “reality”? One might respond, “Reality is ‘that which is.’” But such an answer would obviously beg the question which has been debated for millennia. Many people seem to hold different views of what constitutes “reality.” Thus, we might ask, whose “reality”? Joseph Stalin’s “reality”? Mother Teresa’s “reality”? Tom Cruise’s “reality”? An atheist’s view of “reality”? Or a Christian theist’s view of “reality”?

It seems to me that one must begin with some preconceptions of “reality,” which in turn serve as the criteria by which interpretations of reality (i.e., truth claims) may be assessed. Thus, I find it hard to believe that you “do not have some first premise from which the rest of [your] philosophy / theology flows.” I would argue that the process by which human beings go about assessing the truth is much more complex than simply assessing whether or not a claim matches reality, as if everyone operates with the same definition of reality. The fact that philosophers have and continue to debate truth claims suggests, at least to me, that they are operating with more or less differing preconceived notions of reality.

Moreover, to say that one’s method for assessing truth claims is valid on the basis that “this is simply the way human beings go about assessing the truth or falsehood of any proposition” dodges the question of epistemological justification. Wittgenstein’s axiom appears to be more of a wordplay than a meaningful justification for knowledge. Why should human beings follow the method of assessing truth and falsehood in the way you advocate? Indeed, if “falsehood” is just as much part of “reality” as “truth,” then one might justify such concepts as “true falsehoods” or “false truths.” Does “reality” demand your methodology? If so, then aren’t you beginning with a predefined interpretation of reality. And if that is the case, then aren’t you also caught up in the same “vicious epistemic circularity” which you attribute to my position?

I should apologize. You politely asked for my response to my own question, and here I go asking you more questions! Okay, I’ll try to provide what will probably be a poorly stated answer to the question. Similar to you, my ‘ultimate criterion for assessing the validity of any truth claims’ is whether or not such truth claims match reality. But I obviously can’t begin with a vacuous definition of reality. In my worldview, reality has already been “predefined,” so to speak. In other words, God has interpreted the world for me. As a creature created as the imago dei, I have the “pre-programming” necessary to interpret God’s world analogically to God’s own interpretation. Thus, I assess all truth claims on the basis of how well they conform to God’s interpretation of reality. God is absolutely omniscient, omnipotent, holy, just and true. Moreover, He has revealed himself in creation, providence, the human conscience, and via special revelation (including Scripture). Therefore, the self-revealing God of Scripture provides the justification, indeed the mandate, for such a biblically conditioned epistemological methodology.

I acknowledge that you may not find this kind of reasoning convincing. After all, as you reason above, if someone claimed to be “the president of the USA, I would have to have some evidential basis for her claim before she could be reasonably believed. Perhaps there is a reliable witness who can attest to this woman’s claim, or perhaps she can produce some document or token unique to the presidential office, but without this corroboration we have no basis for believing her.” (BTW, does your use of the feminine pronoun reflect a hope that Hilary might get elected? ) But what more reliable witness to God’s own identity can be produced than God own self-attestation? If God must provide a reliable witness to confirm his identity, then would we not have to ask the same from his witness? And on ad infinitum we go! You and I may need to produce an I.D. card, but would you impose that requirement upon God? Of course, God has revealed himself to humankind clearly and convincingly, leaving sinful men without an epistemic (or ethical) excuse for rejecting his self-authenticating revelation (Rom. 1:18-21, 32; 2:12-14). In other words, God is not silent, and we, as his images, are not deaf to our Maker’s voice. It resonates within our hearts. Once we receive his forgiveness and bow to his lordship, we must allow every aspect of our lives–even our thinking–to be governed by his word. Accordingly, I believe in a thorough Christian and biblical epistemology.

Rob (above) thinks this kind of reasoning is too deductive. Actually, I advocate an epistemological method that is both deductive and also inductive. “The Realty” defines the facts, but the facts (properly interpreted) reveal “the Reality.” Stated differently, Christian theism is the necessary precondition for all human knowledge and ethics. The Christian worldview revealed in Scripture is true because of the impossibility of the contrary (a transcendental argument).

BTW, I disagree with Rob’s assessment of a truly Reformed and Calvinistic epistemology. Calvin’s view of the sensus divinitatis together with his view of the self-authenticating quality of Scripture preclude a purely evidentialist epistemology that assumes such things as “brute facts,” epistemic neutrality, and autonomous human reason as the starting point for true knowledge. It was Calvin who taught that one cannot truly know God unless he first truly knows himself; moreover, man cannot truly know himself unless he first truly knows his Maker. How’s that for “vicious epistemological circularity”!

Well, I guess I should stop here since I’m probably getting in over my head. What I’m trying to say has been better expressed by John Frame, a former Westminster professor, pupil of Van Til, and one whose epistemological method (and view of Scripture) would differ from that of Peter Enns. See Frame’s The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Presbyterian & Reformed, 1987) for a more comprehensive articulation of a biblical epistemology. I would also read Van Til’s “My Credo,” in Jerusalem & Athens: Critical Discussions on the Philosophy and Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til (P&R, 1980), as well as his “Why I Believe in God?”

Nathanael, I hope I haven’t bored or humored you too much. I do want to thank you for your politeness and for the opportunity to interact with your blog. May God guide you into all truth (John 14:6).

Cordially,
Bob Gonzales